Kerry makes it clear, it's still about Iraq

[ProSense]

Transcript: Sen. John Kerry on 'FNS':

WALLACE: I want to ask you about the War on Terror in a second, but I just want to make clear on 2008: You have not given up the thought of running for president in 2008?

KERRY: Not in the least. I'm looking at it in the same way. The people that I have talked to across the country are — my team is confident and strong. I don't know what I'll do.

WALLACE: Are you thinking of setting up — because that seems to be the thing to do now — are you thinking of setting up an exploratory committee?

KERRY: You know what we need to do right now? And I've said this all along. My decision would be somewhere around the turn of the year, beginning of the year. Right now our focus, all of us, ought to be to respect what happened on Election Day.

The American people want us to make the Congress function in their interests. The American people are waiting for us to lift up an enormous challenge.

And what's interesting to me is, you know, my colleagues in the Senate and the House are not going to do unto others as they've done unto us. We're not going to be seeking retribution. We're all reaching out to our ranking members as future chairmen. We're going to try to work across the aisle. We're going to try to build the consensus necessary.

And I'm prepared — as I say, I called Condoleezza Rice. Nothing is more important than resolving Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea. And I will do everything in my power there.

Snip...

KERRY: I have confidence in the generals. I think they've been put in a very, very difficult position.

What I don't have confidence in is the policy. And General Abizaid is giving us a diagnosis that is based on the current policy. But that policy has to change, and it can change.

I believe that if you pursue — I know that if you pursue legitimate diplomacy, the way Henry Kissinger did when he made multiple trips, night after night, day after day, twisting arms, working; if you make the effort that Jim Baker did to build a legitimate coalition, I'm confident we can do what's necessary to get the neighborhood — and I include in that Iran and Syria — to take greater stakes in what they realize they have a stake in.

And, frankly, it's very incumbent on us Democrats — and this is why I called Condoleezza Rice. We have a significant role to play, because we have credibility, because we need to represent a united government. This is in America's interest. This is not Democrat or Republican.

And, frankly, that's how you protect and honor the troops. You give the troops the civilian leadership and the policy that backs them up. We owe them that, and that's what I'm going to work on.

more...

[sandrakae]

1. Wallace was relentless about talking about that dumn joke. John Kerry did a good job.

[MH1]

2. I didn't see it, but from the transcript, it looks like Kerry did great.

I like the way it ended, too (at least in print):

WALLACE: I want to thank you so much for coming in today...

KERRY: Proud to be here.

WALLACE: ... and dealing with all of this. Please come back, sir.

KERRY: I will.

Wallace seems almost human there.

[ProSense]

3. McCain's comment's on Iraq are all over the place!

McCain: Sending More Troops Would ‘Absolutely…Be Terrible’ For Military, Risks ‘Broken Army’

Today on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) acknowledged that his plan to escalate the Iraq war by sending at least 20,000 more troops “would it put a terrible strain on the Army and Marine Corps.” “Absolutely, it would be terrible,” he said, “we’re going to be asking people to go back again and again, maybe even extend their tours.” McCain said he “saw a broken Army in 1973″ and didn’t want to see another. Watch it:

McCain says more troops needed in Iraq

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Without additional troops to ensure victory in Iraq, the U.S. could find itself more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Sunday.

Newly empowered Democrats pressed their case for a phased withdrawal of American forces. They hoped a blue-ribbon advisory panel would propose a way ahead for Iraq, while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely.

more...

[ProSense]

4. Newsweek's deep denial

The Iraq Primary

It's been Bush's problem. But as the 2008 presidential election looms, contenders in both parties are sorting out their Iraq positions. What they'd do, and who they listen to.



Key Issue: A U.S. soldier on patrol in Baghdad

By Jonathan Darman
Newsweek

Nov. 27, 2006 issue - For a moment, at least, John McCain and Hillary Clinton shared a common cause. It was one week after the midterm elections. They were back in the Senate, back in their seats on the Armed Services Committee, back to venting about Iraq. The target was Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command in the Mideast. McCain chafed at Abizaid's assertion that there were encouraging signs in the troubled conflict. Is "it encouraging," McCain wondered, "that people dressed in police uniforms are able to come in and kidnap 150 people and leave with them ... through checkpoints?" Clinton was also quick to pounce. "The situation in Iraq is not improving," she told Abizaid. "Hope is not a strategy."

Hope is no strategy: a lesson Clinton and other potential presidential candidates are quickly coming to learn. As the Bush presidency approaches its seventh year and the war continues, Iraq is no longer just George W. Bush's problem. Washington waits for a miracle pill from James Baker and Lee Hamilton's Iraq Study Group. But leaders in both parties know that a truly happy solution to the conflict is nowhere in sight—and may never be.

more...

Missing, but still the only realistic plan:

KERRY-FEINGOLD

Congress Approves Kerry Legislation Urging Summit of Iraq and Its Neighbors to End Civil War and Build Political Solution

[karynnj]

5. Maybe Newsweek is looking at the wrong Senators -

Kissinger chimes in too - calling for diplomacy and bringing in the neighbors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washington/19cnd-policy.html?hp&ex=1163998800&en=3cdc762ab54b839d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Look who is mentioned - way down in the article - the one and only Senator Kerry - who basically recommended this in 2004 - and possibly 2003. As mentioned in the op - that type of diplomacy is called for in Kerry's summit amendment. (But then Kerry got it right on Vietnam before Kissinger too.)

"Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, cited Mr. Kissinger’s own negotiations with the North Vietnamese in arguing for engagement with Iran and Syria.

If you pursue legitimate diplomacy, the way Henry Kissinger did when he made multiple trips, night after night, day after day, twisting arms, working; if you make the effort that Jim Baker did to build a legitimate coalition, I’m confident we can do what’s necessary to get the neighborhood — and I include in that Iran and Syria — to take greater stakes,” Mr. Kerry told Fox News. "

So, Kerry obviously did get serious points out there - too bad they didn't mention he pointed out that he and others wanted this 3 years ago.

[beachmom]

6. Just noticed the Golden Rule thrown in there

Funny how the so-called "Christians" aka the Republicans who ran the place so nastily NEVER had the Golden Rule in mind.

Great interview by Senator Kerry today.

[ginnyinWI]

7. and it's also funny how ordinary people who say they are Christians

idolize rightwing politicians who are anything but Christian in their actions. If * is a Christian, he has a lot of 'splaining to do!

[Unbowed]

8. I hope the good Senator capitalizes on the media willingness to use him as a favorite whipping boy.

If he strikes "while the iron is hot" and keeps doing these interviews, I think it will turn any negativity from the senator's mis-statement to the real issues.

Kerry does sum it up quitely clearly: "And, frankly, that's how you protect and honor the troops. You give the troops the civilian leadership and the policy that backs them up. We owe them that, and that's what I'm going to work on."

Now that's what the media should be concentrating on. We need to support the troops by bringing them home and nothing short of that is worth a bucket of spit.

[iilana X]

9. K&R

:kick:

[BlueIris]

10. Kick. nt

[pat_k]

11. It's not Iraq; it's outrage at Bush (and Kerry doesn't even utter his name)

Curtis Gans
Director
http://spa.american.edu/csae">Center for the Study of the American Electorate

On Politically Direct with David Bender
November 10th (http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">mp3 interview start time approx 18:30)

Bender: Joining me now is Curtis Gans. He is the Director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University and he has just released a new study analyzing the turnout this past Tuesday, and there's some interesting and there are some very, very interesting shifts in the turnout from previous elections. Welcome to Politically Direct . . .

Gans: It's very good to talk to you David.

Bender: Curtis, I'm holding the study in my hand right now, and clearly one of the things that all the exit polls showed was that Iraq played a part and your own work bears that out -- that Iraq helped propel some degree of an increase in turnout in this last election.

Gans: I think that it is not simply Iraq, although Iraq started Bush's downhill. But it is a gestalt around George Bush. it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

Bender: You've been doing this for almost 30 years; studying the American electorate. And there is probably no greater expert than you. It's just a real pleasure to have you on this program. . .

The prescription?

Traditionally, at least for the last 30 years, they have essentially been very tactical; very programmatic. I don't think either one of those works. I think they have to have an articulation of Central American principles and what that means within a progressive Party.

. . .You know, what is a Democratic definition of liberty? What is Democratic definition of the common welfare? Etc.

Bender: This is a moment, clearly -- the people voted for accountability, there's no question about that. And the opportunity to show that the Democratic Party is the Party of the Constitution, I think will be a very popular position across the board, particularly with Independents, and maybe even some Republicans who still love this Constitution.

Gans: The concept of the Constitution and the People's Government is something that can unite the Democratic Party in ways it hasn't been united since the late 1960's
. . .

How can the Democrats become the Party of "the Constitution and the People's Government" if they continue to adhere to their self-imposed "impeachment is off limits" edict? If they continue their pre-emptive surrender in the fight to defend the Constitution?

It is impossible.

A laundry list of legislation while people are being tortured and the "tactical" sham of committing to "bipartisanship" in Bush-world, is the opposite of what this nation needs. It is the opposite of what the Democratic Party needs to be if they are to have any hope of inspiring and engaging the electorate.

Wake Up Dems! http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm Truth Matters!>

Impeachment IS Our Positive Agenda!